Free will seems like a non-issue. - Think Atheist2015-03-03T19:01:24Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/free-will-seems-like-a-non-issue?xg_source=activity&id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1091597&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBullshit. Science is not "he…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-06:1982180:Comment:10928872012-04-06T00:23:22.174ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><em><strong>Bullshit. Science is not "helpless". We know what science is and what it is not.</strong></em><br></br><br></br>And yet, as you admit, string theory has both proponents and detractors. It's helpless to get past this impasse in which some scientists see it as scientific and others do not.<br></br> <br></br><br></br><em><strong>Are you really suggesting that scientists don't know or take the time to understand the underlying principles in their field of study? Or in science in general? Are you…</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Bullshit. Science is not "helpless". We know what science is and what it is not.</strong></em><br/><br/>And yet, as you admit, string theory has both proponents and detractors. It's helpless to get past this impasse in which some scientists see it as scientific and others do not.<br/> <br/><br/><em><strong>Are you really suggesting that scientists don't know or take the time to understand the underlying principles in their field of study? Or in science in general? Are you serious? Do you even know how much foundational work and education they must achieve before they ever even begin to specialize? And guess what? Philosophy courses are not required at all!</strong></em> <br/><br/>Having taken a post graduate philosophy of science course audited by several post graduate science and engineering students, I can tell you that they learned that they had very poor backgrounds in the evolution of scientific methods and the principles underlying science such that they started out as skeptics and by the end were asking their respective departments to give them credit for the course. Most scientists, I have learned, pick up scientific method and logic by the seat of the pants along the way. They absorb it.<br/><br/><br/><em><strong>It sounds like you really want philosophy to be something more than what it is. But, again, I reiterate, as a method for discovery about the universe, it is no longer useful. If it were, you would have had more to offer than string theory as something philosophy has brought to the scientific table, which was actually developed by theoretical physicists and not philosophers.</strong></em><br/><br/>Actually, you won't admit that philosophy is more than the straw man you portray. As I've said, I maintain that theoretical scientists are doing philosophy. Not ancient philosophy or renaissance philosophy or 19th century philosophy. They are doing philosophy as its done in the 20th/21st century world. When a scientist speculates about possibilities (brainstorms), he's doing philosophy. It's only when he turns to proving his conclusions that he drops the cloak of the philosopher and takes on the cloak of the pure scientist.</p>
<p>But even then, he's using logic, which is a branch of philosophy. And mathematics, which is a subset of logic.</p> Take an example: Is string th…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10928672012-04-05T22:09:38.714ZReggiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Reggie
<blockquote><p>Take an example: Is string theory science or not? Once you ask that question, science is helpless. This question goes into the ballpark of the very healthy branch of philosophy called the philosophy of science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bullshit. Science is not "helpless". We know what science is and what it is not. How absurd. As far as the question itself? That depends on who you ask. Since it never gets past mathematical speculation, many I agree with would say no. …</p>
<blockquote><p>Take an example: Is string theory science or not? Once you ask that question, science is helpless. This question goes into the ballpark of the very healthy branch of philosophy called the philosophy of science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bullshit. Science is not "helpless". We know what science is and what it is not. How absurd. As far as the question itself? That depends on who you ask. Since it never gets past mathematical speculation, many I agree with would say no. Doing science requires working through the scientific method. String Theory can't do that. And furthermore, the basis of the speculation for it is dodgy at best. You can ruminate about Russell's teapot all you want, but you are not doing cosmology.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Scientists just have science dropped in their laps, and only the best scientists take time off from practicing science to try to understand the principles underlying science. This is where the philosopher of science comes in.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>More bollocks. Are you really suggesting that scientists don't know or take the time to understand the underlying principles in their field of study? Or in science in general? Are you serious? Do you even know how much foundational work and education they must achieve before they ever even begin to specialize? And guess what? Philosophy courses are not required at all! </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>That's piss-poor epistemology, if you ask me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How ironic.</p>
<p><br/>It sounds like you really want philosophy to be something more than what it is. But, again, I reiterate, as a method for discovery about the universe, it is no longer useful. If it were, you would have had more to offer than string theory as something philosophy has brought to the scientific table, which was actually developed by theoretical physicists and not philosophers.</p> Philosophers don't do science…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10928522012-04-05T21:40:57.418ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><em><strong>Philosophers don't do science. Scientists do. And if in the heart of a scientists lurks a philosopher then that is all just peaches and cream. But they aren't practicing philosophy and they are not making important discoveries using philosophy. They are doing this all using science.</strong></em></p>
<p>Take an example: Is string theory science or not? Once you ask that question, science is helpless. This question goes into the ballpark of the very healthy branch of philosophy…</p>
<p><em><strong>Philosophers don't do science. Scientists do. And if in the heart of a scientists lurks a philosopher then that is all just peaches and cream. But they aren't practicing philosophy and they are not making important discoveries using philosophy. They are doing this all using science.</strong></em></p>
<p>Take an example: Is string theory science or not? Once you ask that question, science is helpless. This question goes into the ballpark of the very healthy branch of philosophy called the philosophy of science.</p>
<p>You see, philosophy doesn't only discuss the existence of God, whether we have free will, whether matters like goodness and beauty really mean anything, it also examines the principles of science which, perhaps strangely, is not a field in science. Scientists just have science dropped in their laps, and only the best scientists take time off from practicing science to try to understand the principles underlying science. This is where the philosopher of science comes in.</p>
<p>Whenever you examine a field's basic principles, you leave that field and enter philosophy, which is why philosophy is well and good, thank you. You strike me as someone who dismisses philosophy a priori, without even becoming terribly familiar with it.</p>
<p>That's piss-poor epistemology, if you ask me.</p>
<p></p> Oh, so you base whether someo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10928452012-04-05T20:46:27.728ZReggiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Reggie
<blockquote><p>Oh, so you base whether someone is something on whether they have attained a PhD?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I guess if a person gets an MD, they are a doctor, right? Or they obtain their JD then they are a lawyer. If they get their PhD in Astrophysics, they are a scientist. Right? To some degree it does matter. </p>
<blockquote><p>I'm curious to know, why can't someone be BOTH a scientist and philosopher.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I never said that couldn't happen. But…</p>
<blockquote><p>Oh, so you base whether someone is something on whether they have attained a PhD?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I guess if a person gets an MD, they are a doctor, right? Or they obtain their JD then they are a lawyer. If they get their PhD in Astrophysics, they are a scientist. Right? To some degree it does matter. </p>
<blockquote><p>I'm curious to know, why can't someone be BOTH a scientist and philosopher.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I never said that couldn't happen. But philosophy doesn't bring anything useful to the table that the scientific method doesn't already possess. </p>
<p>Science has important roots in philosophy which is why there are some aspects of it that are so similar. You mention Plato, a philosopher. But what he did is not comparable to what Darwin, a Natural Philosopher, did. Only in the most basic way is it even comparable; they ask big questions and seek to answer them. But in how they seek to answer them is so vastly different that to equate these philosophies as being equally valid ways to discover the objective nature of the universe is silly. And we have progressed beyond natural philosophy into modern science.</p>
<p>Philosophers don't do science. Scientists do. And if in the heart of a scientists lurks a philosopher then that is all just peaches and cream. But they aren't practicing philosophy and they are not making important discoveries using philosophy. They are doing this all using science.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> BTW, I wasn't considering the…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10926042012-04-05T13:59:09.719ZTomhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Tom342
<p>BTW, I wasn't considering the issue with children in mind, rather adults. I completely agree with regard to children; their actions have consequences so minimal that post-action punishment will rarely be justified or effective. People beyond their formative years, however, will usually have more intractable personality traits, and can probably not be so easily sculpted by positive reinforcement, although it may still be helpful. Adults are also unlikely to be so easily duped by the kind of…</p>
<p>BTW, I wasn't considering the issue with children in mind, rather adults. I completely agree with regard to children; their actions have consequences so minimal that post-action punishment will rarely be justified or effective. People beyond their formative years, however, will usually have more intractable personality traits, and can probably not be so easily sculpted by positive reinforcement, although it may still be helpful. Adults are also unlikely to be so easily duped by the kind of gimmicks that seduce children.</p> Yes, in the real world obtain…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10925132012-04-05T13:52:48.600ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Yes, in the real world obtaining a Mercedes Benz is a lot more important than really understanding the nature of the world we live in.</p>
<p>Yes, in the real world obtaining a Mercedes Benz is a lot more important than really understanding the nature of the world we live in.</p> Yeah, you're right. I suppose…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10926012012-04-05T13:51:37.772ZTomhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Tom342
<p>Yeah, you're right. I suppose the discussion is better viewed from the perspective of what we hope we will do, rather than what we will choose to do. Of course we do not essentially have the ability to make truly independent choices based on the our knowledge of free will's absence; however, if we learn of its non-existence this will likely influence the mental processes that currently manifest as free will, this should bring about a different set of circumstances than a situation in which…</p>
<p>Yeah, you're right. I suppose the discussion is better viewed from the perspective of what we hope we will do, rather than what we will choose to do. Of course we do not essentially have the ability to make truly independent choices based on the our knowledge of free will's absence; however, if we learn of its non-existence this will likely influence the mental processes that currently manifest as free will, this should bring about a different set of circumstances than a situation in which people were not having these discussions. Everything is predetermined or random (but not chosen) so what we are really saying is that what we are currently discussing is important in 'forcing' us to react a certain way to criminals etc. It's kind of an academic issue about whether it is good or bad to believe in free will, rather than whether we should or shouldn't, which is out of our hands. But yeah, in terms of what's going to happen, we are "like a rock".</p> Oh, so you base whether someo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10924562012-04-05T13:43:47.292ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Oh, so you base whether someone is something on whether they have attained a PhD? So, you can't be a writer without obtaining a writing certificate from a university?</p>
<p>I'm curious to know, why can't someone be BOTH a scientist and philosopher.</p>
<p>You are talking patent nonsense. One can be both a philosopher and a writer and a scientist. Even if you don't call yourself such.</p>
<p>Philosophy has always been about being a "lover of knowlege" (which is what "philosopher" means).</p>
<p>Oh, so you base whether someone is something on whether they have attained a PhD? So, you can't be a writer without obtaining a writing certificate from a university?</p>
<p>I'm curious to know, why can't someone be BOTH a scientist and philosopher.</p>
<p>You are talking patent nonsense. One can be both a philosopher and a writer and a scientist. Even if you don't call yourself such.</p>
<p>Philosophy has always been about being a "lover of knowlege" (which is what "philosopher" means).</p> "If we have free will we can…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10924552012-04-05T13:41:04.748ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>"If we have free will we can do the same." The word "can" which you use in itself implies freedom.</p>
<p>"Your perception of the meaning of life has no effect on whether or not you actually possess free will." But realizing realizing that good people and bad do what they do without being able to do otherwise, takes a lot of the meaning out of our behavior.</p>
<p>"If we have free will we can do the same." The word "can" which you use in itself implies freedom.</p>
<p>"Your perception of the meaning of life has no effect on whether or not you actually possess free will." But realizing realizing that good people and bad do what they do without being able to do otherwise, takes a lot of the meaning out of our behavior.</p> And one more thing I find hum…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-05:1982180:Comment:10924542012-04-05T13:11:04.240ZReggiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Reggie
<p>And one more thing I find humorous and must point out is that you hold up string theory as this gold standard of "philosophy science". The thing is, they didn't just run the math and discover extra dimensions. No, they ran the math and the math didn't compute so they invented dimensions in order to make the equations work. That and it being untestable is why many dismiss string theory.</p>
<p>If philosophy is mental masturbation, then string theory is mathematical masturbation.</p>
<p>And one more thing I find humorous and must point out is that you hold up string theory as this gold standard of "philosophy science". The thing is, they didn't just run the math and discover extra dimensions. No, they ran the math and the math didn't compute so they invented dimensions in order to make the equations work. That and it being untestable is why many dismiss string theory.</p>
<p>If philosophy is mental masturbation, then string theory is mathematical masturbation.</p>